https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390924 Section 11A could not be used to recover a refund granted under Notification No. 32/99-CE where the refund order had never been challenged in the prescribed revisional manner and the adjudication itself proceeded on the basis that no excisable manufacture had occurred. On that footing, the basic charging condition for excise duty was absent, and the recovery demand was unsustainable. The demand for alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of Cenvat credit also failed because the notification did not cover refund of duty paid through credit and the records showed utilisation of credit in payment of duty. Appropriation of another unit's deposit was invalid, as one entity's money could not be applied to another's liability. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:14:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390924 Section 11A could not be used to recover a refund granted under Notification No. 32/99-CE where the refund order had never been challenged in the prescribed revisional manner and the adjudication itself proceeded on the basis that no excisable manufacture had occurred. On that footing, the basic charging condition for excise duty was absent, and the recovery demand was unsustainable. The demand for alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of Cenvat credit also failed because the notification did not cover refund of duty paid through credit and the records showed utilisation of credit in payment of duty. Appropriation of another unit's deposit was invalid, as one entity's money could not be applied to another's liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390924